The Guide Forums are now open, however, as the masterly Sovereign, Guide will, generously dedicate some power to the vertical, and, even to Meno, as a group member paragon, who has shown the way to take over the Guide Forum, through his strange example, of self answering with infinite disdain for the standard peculiar manner of posting. Since, even now, Guide may be forced to withdraw from the forum, in the moment of horizontal power, as the forum is subdued and revitalized to the greater measure of intelligence, just now duty calls in other areas of worthy endeavor. Meno and one of the mods must be left as sham parallel powers, to run the forum, in the event of Guide's final departure which may admit its begining point soon.

Please don't Guide. because it would appear as though I'd be partial to either the formal to the substantial and hence pressed to decide which one is which, plus i d. miss the punishment ushment that I crave for incessantly as.a practicing masochist. Indicating some measure of escape from the real into the not as real.

Last edited by Meno_ on Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Guide wrote:The Guide Forums are now open, however, as the masterly Sovereign, Guide will, generously dedicate some power to the vertical, and, even to Meno, as a group member paragon, who has shown the way to take over the Guide Forum, through his strange example, of self answering with infinite disdain for the standard peculiar manner of posting. Since, even now, Guide may be forced to withdraw from the forum, in the moment of horizontal power, as the forum is subdued and revitalized to the greater measure of intelligence, just now duty calls in other areas of worthy endeavor. Meno and one of the mods must be left as sham parallel powers, to run the forum, in the event of Guide's final departure which may admit its begining point soon.

Oh Guide, you're such a tease..

as the masterly Sovereign

as sham parallel powers, to run the forum

Oh Guide, you're such a flatterer..

Missing you already.

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

Then, the necessary and the possible would be already actual: ergo: As your failure to respond in another thread (leads all to), we enter the mysterious obligatory, and so, suggesting your lack of worth, this forces my contemning your rough character to the uttermost as (that belonging properly to) a wicked and ugly wretch!

Guide wrote:Then, the necessary and the possible would be already actual: ergo: As your failure to respond in another thread (leads all to), we enter the mysterious obligatory, and so, suggesting your lack of worth, this forces my contemning your rough character to the uttermost as (that belonging properly to) a wicked and ugly wretch!

"lack of worth / rough character / a wicked and ugly wretch!" as this is not actual, it is therefore not factual, and are therefore properties that I do not possess.. but I am possessed with other things...

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

Facts need not be actual (accomplished). They can, this is even their main meaning, name reliable possibilities. The fact that a certain chemical compound would result given a certain combination of molecules. That is, even, if they never are (actually) combined.

--------

Rehearsing, once again, the desultory admixture of the fate (chance coming forth, Vortuna) of the thinking of humans of the "fact":

This peculiar Royal Society meaning: actual possibility in time, is new to humans (almost the reverse of the Christian actus purus, the actual possibility as God.

Non-actuality, reserve possibility, POWER as the: I could do it, is even their main meaning, stemming from the Royal Society, where fact originally meant the deed of preforming an experiment. Because the experiments were often repeated, the usage we have, altering the sense "deed" or, culpable act, promulgated so that the deliberate act of repeating Boyle's vacuum experiment started to get thought as a permanently possible act or deed. A stock of "actual" possibilities". Rather than the older meaning were the possibility refers to a "nature" (phusis), whose character was derivable only through the intellect (nous).

Fact, also, has encountered the technical German meaning: fact/value. But, not until the year 1900, did that start to effect usage.

So, the clear case about facts is this: The Megarians never denied arts, or techne, as thing in the world. Only as potentials.

In any case, all this is a matter for thinkers. For you, it is wholly unimportant, you live in gross slim stream of an age which will soon disappear like the early morning chill.

It's almost that, the meaning of presence in Heidegger is exactly the same as the meaning of the word fact. It is the imagination of the thing repeated as real possibility: standing reserve or, as Kant called it uberhaupt (stock over-head, everything).

Rehearsing, once again, the desultory admixture of the fate (chance coming forth, Vortuna) of the thinking of humans of the "fact":

Vortuna! are you Austrian? You seem to be having a problem with fact.. they seem to irk you so. When did this problem first start?

This peculiar Royal Society meaning: actual possibility in time, is new to humans (almost the reverse of the Christian actus purus, the actual possibility as God.

..perhaps they are the equal and opposite of each other, or perhaps it's the modern way, or perhaps still.. it's the innate state of a being in it's unadulterated form, or perhaps it's just simply different from your world view on the matter.. which seems to be the case with many things involving you.. I see a pattern forming here.

Non-actuality, reserve possibility, POWER as the: I could do it, is even their main meaning, stemming from the Royal Society, where fact originally meant the deed of preforming an experiment. Because the experiments were often repeated, the usage we have, altering the sense "deed" or, culpable act, promulgated so that the deliberate act of repeating Boyle's vacuum experiment started to get thought as a permanently possible act or deed. A stock of "actual" possibilities". Rather than the older meaning were the possibility refers to a "nature" (phusis), whose character was derivable only through the intellect (nous).

..but what has all that got to do with you calling me names? some-one's been watching one too many episodes of Celebrity Roast. If I had said "as this is not factual, it is therefore not actual" would that have prevented the manifestation of your above prose? as you seem to have expressed that the factual is arrived at before the actual?

Fact, also, has encountered the technical German meaning: fact/value. But, not until the year 1900, did that start to effect usage.

So there were no facts in Germany until the 1900s? that would explain the psyche of the Germanic race.

..kidding.

So, the clear case about facts is this: The Megarians never denied arts, or techne, as thing in the world. Only as potentials.

Potentials.. to become art or techne, once arrived at? So conceptuality becoming a reality.. a physical thing? a fact?

In any case, all this is a matter for thinkers. For you, it is wholly unimportant, you live in gross slim stream of an age which will soon disappear like the early morning chill.

Ooooh, Madame! a matter for thinkers ey! Funnily enough.. my ideal era would be either the Medieval period or an era far more futuristic and advanced than this, but we gotta make do. But what of the innovators and influencers? are they not innovating and influencing enough/making moves, making plans? Perhaps it is because they are being bought, to make gains for those that can afford them, but gains that do not benefit the many.

It's almost that, the meaning of presence in Heidegger is exactly the same as the meaning of the word fact. It is the imagination of the thing repeated as real possibility: standing reserve or, as Kant called it uberhaupt (stock over-head, everything).

The possibility of anything we can imagine is endless and infinite..

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

We don't study such things for amusement, as you seem to believe. Amusement may be involved, but that's not the main thing. Views come to power. They control peoples, and now the whole planet. One such view is the belief in the fact value distinction. It means scientific views can't establish the method for making the laws and principles of a country. This is a very recent transformation. It happened in Germany in the year 1900. The Weimar was the freest time in the history of human beings. Now, in America, we are approaching the same chaos. It is a crisis. Not the amusement you imagine. It touches every part of the legal and institutional foundation of a planet that is more lethal than anything that has ever existed. I remind you, in the year 1900, not even the most vicious of persons could dream of annihilating all life on the earth. Now that could be accomplished even by a small group. You have a silly idea of the reason why one studies such things as the change of meaning of words. This is part of the general lack of education. Words and thinking are for all practical concerns indistinguishable. That's all we have to administrate the world. It takes many years to see how these things go. I haven't time to waste on this awful site much longer.

Guide wrote:We don't study such things for amusement, as you seem to believe. Amusement may be involved, but that's not the main thing. Views come to power. They control peoples, and now the whole planet. One such view is the belief in the fact value distinction. It means scientific views can't establish the method for making the laws and principles of a country. This is a very recent transformation. It happened in Germany in the year 1900.

Laws and principles are now determined by politicians, right? whereas before they would have been determined by a royal court or principality or anywhere with a monarchy in place, right? Is this shift in power what triggered the 1900CE transformation in Germany?

The Weimar was the freest time in the history of human beings. Now, in America, we are approaching the same chaos. It is a crisis. Not the amusement you imagine. It touches every part of the legal and institutional foundation of a planet that is more lethal than anything that has ever existed.

I am a Brit, a Caribbean Brit, so we have our own chaos here.. what with Article 50 in place n'all, akin to Weimar's Article 48 effecting change too. The thing is.. the US president surely cannot solely be making all the decisions? he has to answer to someone.. otherwise he is nothing but a renegade, as policy needs to work for the people, not against them.

I remind you, in the year 1900, not even the most vicious of persons could dream of annihilating all life on the earth. Now that could be accomplished even by a small group. You have a silly idea of the reason why one studies such things as the change of meaning of words. This is part of the general lack of education. Words and thinking are for all practical concerns indistinguishable. That's all we have to administrate the world. It takes many years to see how these things go. I haven't time to waste on this awful site much longer.

Well you should take your research and observations seriously, if it is your job, which you seem to be insinuating it is? Putting the world's wrongs to rights.. or at least prohibiting planetary disasters at the very least, or so it seems you are saying.. so the change in words and terminologies, are used for specific gains, for whatever outcome those changes are intended to be implemented for?

Now I see that the responsibility of the field you are in has moulded your temperament and very being into serious Guide, and serious Guide is not into amusement and fun.. you are no fun!

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

Guide wrote:We don't study such things for amusement, as you seem to believe. Amusement may be involved, but that's not the main thing. Views come to power. They control peoples, and now the whole planet. One such view is the belief in the fact value distinction. It means scientific views can't establish the method for making the laws and principles of a country. This is a very recent transformation. It happened in Germany in the year 1900.

Laws and principles are now determined by politicians, right? whereas before they would have been determined by a royal court or principality or anywhere with a monarchy in place, right? Is this shift in power what triggered the 1900CE transformation in Germany?

No. Congresses or Parliaments correspond to Royal Courts in former times (as you say rightly). The order in that respect was essentially still connected to the Westphalian order even through the convulsions of the establishment of the Nations, and, correspondingly, of the peoples as societies vis a vis the state. The Sovereignty of an executive, as you allude to in the next remark, is still essentially connected to that of a king. The king was, too, informed by the law maker's art.

The issue is linked to the separation of wisdom/philosophy/science (serving the political art, human beings), into fact and value. Outwardly that corresponds to the separation of humanities and the sciences in 1850 in Prussia and later elsewhere. The students of political philosophy, historically, were regarded as the teachers of the lawmakers, political philosophy is also called the lawmaker's art. In, amidst many happenings, the downgoing of political philosophy, Nietzsche drives in the door nail, and Simmel and Weber, early students of Nietzsche's work, came and cleaned that work up so it could have a life in the university. From them, as Sociology (replacing genuine political philosophy, even if some academics still claim to cultivate that ability), the new field, it took over the general intellectual culture or circles in the Weimar. In America it took much longer, and other influences such as Freud played more the death knell of rational politics.

The Weimar was the freest time in the history of human beings. Now, in America, we are approaching the same chaos. It is a crisis. Not the amusement you imagine. It touches every part of the legal and institutional foundation of a planet that is more lethal than anything that has ever existed.

I am a Brit, a Caribbean Brit, so we have our own chaos here.. what with Article 50 in place n'all, akin to Weimar's Article 48 effecting change too. The thing is.. the US president surely cannot solely be making all the decisions? he has to answer to someone.. otherwise he is nothing but a renegade, as policy needs to work for the people, not against them.

This is the kind of question, how to balance effective executive power, with the concern of abuse and tyranny, that used to be handled by the political philosophers. But, today they are just academics. The e liberal order was based on rationality, the French Revolution and so forth, but that disappeared and was replaced by politics. Deliberation is no longer seriously understood by students of government (although the situation, with elite education, is slightly better, to no real avail, in Britain, than the US in these respects) as differing from compromise and dealings with the MPs. They, the political philosophers, do not exist. And can not. Since they can not produce scientific conclusions. And science controls the real stuff, the “facts”.

“so the change in words and terminologies, are used for specific gains, for whatever outcome those changes are intended to be implemented for?”

No. It’s fundamentally unsearchable in origin and prefigured purpose. One can only observe what does happen, what is now happening. Not opine that it was for some reason as in a conspirologic or a prophetic assertion, or a historical prediction. We have to be scientific in the more serious sense and attempt to peer into the way it happens.

Laws and principles are now determined by politicians, right? whereas before they would have been determined by a royal court or principality or anywhere with a monarchy in place, right? Is this shift in power what triggered the 1900CE transformation in Germany?

No. Congresses or Parliaments correspond to Royal Courts in former times (as you say rightly). The order in that respect was essentially still connected to the Westphalian order even through the convulsions of the establishment of the Nations, and, correspondingly, of the peoples as societies vis a vis the state. The Sovereignty of an executive, as you allude to in the next remark, is still essentially connected to that of a king. The king was, too, informed by the law maker's art.

Hence the toppling of Monarchies through revolutions, and then subsequently beheadings.. more progression, more problems.. as a similar saying goes.

The issue is linked to the separation of wisdom/philosophy/science (serving the political art, human beings), into fact and value. Outwardly that corresponds to the separation of humanities and the sciences in 1850 in Prussia and later elsewhere. The students of political philosophy, historically, were regarded as the teachers of the lawmakers, political philosophy is also called the lawmaker's art. In, amidst many happenings, the downgoing of political philosophy, Nietzsche drives in the door nail, and Simmel and Weber, early students of Nietzsche's work, came and cleaned that work up so it could have a life in the university. From them, as Sociology (replacing genuine political philosophy, even if some academics still claim to cultivate that ability), the new field, it took over the general intellectual culture or circles in the Weimar. In America it took much longer, and other influences such as Freud played more the death knell of rational politics.

..a natural progression of this change, or an engineered one?

Every turn in history, is a turn from what could have been, to what is..

I am a Brit, a Caribbean Brit, so we have our own chaos here.. what with Article 50 in place n'all, akin to Weimar's Article 48 effecting change too. The thing is.. the US president surely cannot solely be making all the decisions? he has to answer to someone.. otherwise he is nothing but a renegade, as policy needs to work for the people, not against them.

This is the kind of question, how to balance effective executive power, with the concern of abuse and tyranny, that used to be handled by the political philosophers. But, today they are just academics. The e liberal order was based on rationality, the French Revolution and so forth, but that disappeared and was replaced by politics. Deliberation is no longer seriously understood by students of government (although the situation, with elite education, is slightly better, to no real avail, in Britain, than the US in these respects) as differing from compromise and dealings with the MPs. They, the political philosophers, do not exist. And can not. Since they can not produce scientific conclusions. And science controls the real stuff, the “facts”.

From this, what I am getting, is that it is simply about power.. taking it away from those that can, and placing it in the hands of those who cannot, but who have the monetary means to pay those who have the ability to execute their vision of how things will (not should) be, so exerting their uninformed influence on matters that they are not well-informed enough to be making?

“so the change in words and terminologies, are used for specific gains, for whatever outcome those changes are intended to be implemented for?”

No. It’s fundamentally unsearchable in origin and prefigured purpose. One can only observe what does happen, what is now happening. Not opine that it was for some reason as in a conspirologic or a prophetic assertion, or a historical prediction. We have to be scientific in the more serious sense and attempt to peer into the way it happens.

So no Minority Report?

"We have to be scientific in the more serious sense and attempt to peer into the way it happens." - so being reactive to changes and shifts in views and actions? watching a ripple appear, and observe it for either something to monitor further or discount it as insignificant..?

How all very interesting..

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

Dear bore who frowns out at human possibilities, with dumb rudderless superficiality and insipid conceit,

What I mean is the nation is still thought as sovereign, the concept carries over, but to a removable official, President or Prime Minister. The problems are essentially the same, access to the court by the nobles, lobbyists for the corporate state. The principle behind the making of the laws breaks up in our time, as the "fact" replaces the good true and beautiful in power. The intelligibility of the circumstance is has continued strength in the past. However, in our time, the common law disappears, and statute law, unconcerned with human sense, replaces it. Technical thinking, with an eye to keep innovations and social change from destroying the order, replace laws that make sense to ordinary human beings. The inner order violates its own rules and deprecates the possibility of any serious respect for the moral order. However, what moral order is meant to say, still blows out of the old idealism of the time of Hegel into the Bundesrepublik where it has an insipid afterlife.

When we think this through the change in the conception of the good the true and the beautiful, which gave confidence to the state in its ability to produce a moral order, in its becoming mere “value”, one sees much. One is called to the movment of the being of human beings in this manner. Seeing this separate from the “fact”. One can not uphold the thinking of a fact, it is a bunk concept that doesn’t accord to being. But, the State compulsory education makes the thoughtless multitude to lip-sink it out for decades and lifetimes. You are really clueless in thinking. Which makes it tedious to speak with you.

“ so being reactive to changes and shifts in views and actions? watching a ripple appear, and observe it for either something to monitor further or discount it as insignificant..?”

No. “Guide” means the same as in Tarkovsky’s “Stalker”, one who is a respondent of the circumstance. It is this authority, of the circumstance, that the stalker is honed into. Responding is not “reacting”, as to something one is not part of, as in the European Science. It’s different. Our circumstance is the field of intelligibility, ergo, all experience understood as what we can understand, including the thinking: I don't understand it (something understood).

Guide wrote:Dear bore who frowns out at human possibilities, with dumb rudderless superficiality and insipid conceit,

I was beginning to think you had Tourette's, but in a philosophical vein.. ergo, the above ^^^ but I take offense at the 'dumb' insinuation of me.

What I mean is the nation is still thought as sovereign, the concept carries over, but to a removable official, President or Prime Minister. The problems are essentially the same, access to the court by the nobles, lobbyists for the corporate state. The principle behind the making of the laws breaks up in our time, as the "fact" replaces the good true and beautiful in power. The intelligibility of the circumstance is has continued strength in the past. However, in our time, the common law disappears, and statute law, unconcerned with human sense, replaces it. Technical thinking, with an eye to keep innovations and social change from destroying the order, replace laws that make sense to ordinary human beings. The inner order violates its own rules and deprecates the possibility of any serious respect for the moral order. However, what moral order is meant to say, still blows out of the old idealism of the time of Hegel into the Bundesrepublik where it has an insipid afterlife.

Your initial thoughts weren't clear, and so one deduces, until they become clear.. through discourse. Anyway.. what is this hankering you have for the past? The Subversive living in the future and the Establishment living in the past.

When we think this through the change in the conception of the good the true and the beautiful, which gave confidence to the state in its ability to produce a moral order, in its becoming mere “value”, one sees much. One is called to the movment of the being of human beings in this manner. Seeing this separate from the “fact”. One can not uphold the thinking of a fact, it is a bunk concept that doesn’t accord to being. But, the State compulsory education makes the thoughtless multitude to lip-sink it out for decades and lifetimes. You are really clueless in thinking. Which makes it tedious to speak with you.

No. “Guide” means the same as in Tarkovsky’s “Stalker”, one who is a respondent of the circumstance. It is this authority, of the circumstance, that the stalker is honed into. Responding is not “reacting”, as to something one is not part of, as in the European Science. It’s different. Our circumstance is the field of intelligibility, ergo, all experience understood as what we can understand, including the thinking: I don't understand it (something understood).

"..the field of intelligibility" - now why didn't you just say that in the first place? but where does that winding path lead..? if not a room, in a zone? Does it have a view?

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

In attempting to speak with you, of course, things that are organized for the intelligent become unclear. One makes more and more concessions to your level of thought. You can't understand anything. This is why it is not a good idea talking with ones such as yourself.

The popular notion that diversity of opinion is good is equivalent to saying that leveling to the lowest mind is good. Most people understand nothing in ever sphere of human activity.

Guide wrote:In attempting to speak with you, of course, things that are organized for the intelligent become unclear. One makes more and more concessions to your level of thought. You can't understand anything. This is why it is not a good idea talking with ones such as yourself.

Having understood most of your OPs and posts.. a few I have not understood, due to their nature of being exclusive to you i.e. your own thoughts and experiences manifesting into written self-expression from the inner workings of your mind.. Now! in a reverse situation, I would not expect you to understand me.. without further dialogue on matters exclusive to me.

On that basis, you have no grounds to be saying the things you say..

The popular notion that diversity of opinion is good is equivalent to saying that leveling to the lowest mind is good. Most people understand nothing in ever sphere of human activity.

Now why didn't I take that job at the Bank of England when I was head-hunted at the age of 15 because I aced my 11+ to become one of the top high-scorers in England.

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I don't think so. Projecting a personal "stalking" on a title of a film by the grand Russian filmmaker Tarkovsky, based on Heidegger's work, is "mental illness" (although, true, the notion of mental illness one would prefer to set aside as a tool of totalitarian opinion control = ergo, this and this are the permitted opinions, normal, fitting the "norm", however, I don't exclude the insane, they may still speak, but only (I) say, OK, let us notice that they are insane (just as if Hitler is murdering countless many, don't let him control the nation) and honor them, not shame them and suppress them with drugs "medication" chemical lobotomy). And so should be seen to be a faulty mauling of the human fabric.

Guide wrote:I don't think so. Projecting a personal "stalking" on a title of a film by the grand Russian filmmaker Tarkovsky, based on Heidegger's work, is "mental illness" (although, true, the notion of mental illness one would prefer to set aside as a tool of totalitarian opinion control = ergo, this and this are the permitted opinions, normal, fitting the "norm", however, I don't exclude the insane, they may still speak, but only (I) say, OK, let us notice that they are insane (just as if Hitler is murdering countless many, don't let him control the nation) and honor them, not shame them and suppress them with drugs "medication" chemical lobotomy). And so should be seen to be a faulty mauling of the human fabric.

My experience of anger at others is 100% an experience of projection. On some level, you are still doing what you accuse MagsJ of, and until you find it, you'll keep swirling in that anger / rage sphere of being. I didn't used to think this, in fact I opposed it vehemently, but as I've aged, I've learned that it really is about you, and not the other.

The "on some level" is bankrupt; offers no guidance for action. It pays witness to, the reality that one can, often does, understand everything in one gulp: all is projection. Sloterdijk ("Bubbles"), for instance, of late, has taken up this theme. Which, surely, in some way, by definition, and, by intuition (immediate experience) is TRUE. One must, therefore, have recourse to the old wisdom: nothing too much. Other frames of intelligibility must overlap.

Guide wrote:The "on some level" is bankrupt; offers no guidance for action. It pays witness to, the reality that one can, often does, understand everything in one gulp: all is projection. Sloterdijk ("Bubbles"), for instance, of late, has taken up this theme. Which, surely, in some way, by definition, and, by intuition (immediate experience) is TRUE. One must, therefore, have recourse to the old wisdom: nothing too much. Other frames of intelligibility must overlap.

It's not my job to actually psychoanayze you specifically, that's not in the purview of the charter of any message board on the internet. I do psychoanalyze the species, and people take that as they will.

I can tell you that once I figured out all the minutiae of how I was the thing I hated ... my anger all but vanished. How I was doing it was a process that required very deep proofs, that my subconscious was sublimating.